Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
12° / 12 Degrees Condos 
25 Beverley St, Toronto
Developer: BSäR Group Of Companies


12° / 12 Degrees Condos | 36m | 11s | BSäR Group | Core Architects

marcus_a_j

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,792
Likes
410
#1
I don't know if there's another thread. I searched but couldn't find one.

From Adam Vaughan's March 2009 Newsletter

15-27 Beverley Street

(image available in PDF version of newsletter)

Craig Hunter of Armstrong Hunter & Associates and Charles Gane of Core Architects presented the proposal for 15-27 Beverley Street, on behalf of property owners Tarek Sobhi and Tyler Hershberg at a public meeting held by Councillor Vaughan on February 9. The proposal is at a pre-application stage, and will require a rezoning application.

There are currently houses on this site that date back to the 1880s, which are in the process of being included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The house at 15 Beverley St. was Frank Gehry's maternal grandmother's house, and the houses are among the first worker cottages in the district.

This project proposes to demolish the houses and replace them with a 13 storey, 42 m building with five live-work townhouses at grade and a residential building above. The building would have a 6500 sq ft floorplate. The loading area will be contained in the building, and entry will be from Cayley Lane to the south, which would be widened and repaved.

There would be a podium at the 6th storey, where there will be a terrace and outdoor amenity space, as well as a landscaped buffer. The design of the building was envisioned as an assortment of glass cubes that would shift from different views around the building. The highest mass is in the south-west corner of the site.

Councillor Vaughan indicated that he had already provided feedback to the applicants that the building was too tall, and had provided the 'Phoebe' building on the west side of Beverley as the height limit that would be accepted, particularly if there would be demolition occurring.

Several residents in attendance raised concerns about the height of the building and the contrast with the heritage buildings in the area, as well as the proposal to demolish the heritage buildings currently at the site.

A few in attendance indicated support for the design of the building and new development in the area. Concerns were raised about drug dealing and graffiti in Cayley Lane, which some attendees felt that the development project would resolve.

Councillor Vaughan asked that the proponents take the feedback from the meeting and return with a revised proposal.
 

urbandreamer

recession proof
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,557
Likes
397
Location
renderpornstar.com
#2
Last edited:

p5connex

Active Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
917
Likes
57
#5
So this is essentially where the cross-walk is - and would replace all the houses which front onto Beverly? I don't know, the houses have seen better days - it seems interesting that the city is suddenly interested in their preservation now that a building proposal, which includes their demise has come into existence. The buildings in question have essentially seen better days and I am inclined to think that, while they may be historical, that the owners were waiting for this to happen.

I am not opposed to the development of this building, on another stretch/site, but I think that keeping them intact and restoring them, like the ones being restored on Phoebe is the better route and more interesting one. I like this proposal, but think that it might be better suited along Bulwer..

p5
 

nicetommy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
350
Likes
0
#6
The row of Victorian homes beginning at the crosswalk and continuing south to the first alley are 39-27B Beverley. This development at 15-27 Beverley shouldn't affect them. There are however 2 short, ugly small squarish buildings next to them that are probably the one's cited in the article.
 

Towered

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,449
Likes
1,003
#7
Again, I'll echo what you guys are saying: great proposal, wrong site.

REJECT.
 

BMyers

Active Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
311
Likes
5
#8


That is hardly worth saving in my mind.

I would much prefer this modern architeture to the bland low-rise that currently occupies the site. I really wonder why anyone thinks this is in an unappropriate area: there are condo apartments to the west, a retirement home to the south and industrial lofts to the east, not exactly a low-rise residential community?
 

Attachments

cdr108

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
4,660
Likes
15
#9
The row of Victorian homes beginning at the crosswalk and continuing south to the first alley are 39-27B Beverley. This development at 15-27 Beverley shouldn't affect them. There are however 2 short, ugly small squarish buildings next to them that are probably the one's cited in the article.

If this is the case, then I'm all for the proposal at the height and location.
The tower just one block further north (south of Grange Park) is definitely taller than 13s, so why not this one?

Does the density exceed the zoning?
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
8,465
Likes
4
#10
Perhaps the plan could be modified to preserve 15 Beverley and incorporate a huge spiral staircase emerging from the roof?
 

BobBob

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,289
Likes
0
#12
At the risk of sounding like a barbarian, given the nature+state of these buildings I would a) demolish them and b) build on their ruins.
 

cdr108

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
4,660
Likes
15
#13
Alternatively, the project could incorporate the facade of the 4 houses as the main lobby or something since that means it will definitely be refurbished !

We've seen several applications (proposed and actual) like Bauhaus, Yonge/St. Nicholas, Kormann House, King's Court, ...
 

Chuck

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,125
Likes
0
#14
Though not the primary cause, projects like these still do contribute to the slower than expected population growth that Toronto is currently experiencing. This 13 level building, which sits on already occupied land, will generate the same population growth as a 5 floor building constructed on a vacant lot. It's very possible that at least 70 students live in those houses and will be displaced.

I would approve the design, scale, and context of this building, but reject it on the grounds that there are many empty lots nearby that are equally developable. Once all vacant lots have been used up, only then would it be appropriate to demolish the existing housing stock.
 

ProjectEnd

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
7,873
Likes
6,075
#15
Development happens primarily because people who own plots of land wish to develop them. Sometimes a developer will eye a certain property and perhaps buy it from its existing owner with intentions to develop it. The city however, does not go around assessing property with the intentions of planning out how neighborhoods will look etc. This is done in a more general sense since the city does have an Official Plan for development, but as we here on UT know, what actually goes up can vary widely.

More succinctly, development comes to the city, not from it.
 

Top